69 Responses to “Apology to B.”

Oh well! I was not following this prediction any way, so can’t comment.

Of your predictions that I’m tracking, you’re batting 5/5. There is still one pending. That is regarding some sort of a Coup that Trump will pull over the permanent government sometime hereabouts. I’m holding off on calling this until the end of June. Jim, do you want to modify the timeline on this coup? Any modifications regarding the areas where he might strike?

It is arguably illegal for him to fire civil servants – but unless he can fire civil servants, not a lot he can do.

Trump has stripped the NSC of power – which radically disempowers blue state, since the NSC was the instrument for blue state control of the military. This is also a fairly sturdy move to have the military in his pocket, which gives him a power base against that part of the permanent government that most opposes him. So he has the military now. He is working on the spies. I was expecting the spies to be loyal to him and easily to be brought over. This has not happened. The spies are run by hostile people and he is having trouble getting loyalists in charge, which is a huge problem.

He also needs to confront the judiciary, and it is obvious he intends to do so from his invocation of Andrew Jackson, but he cannot do that until after Gorsuch is confimed. Confronting the Judiciary is going to be rather like a self coup and will be a major improvement in his ability to govern.

But for him to have power, he has to fire civil servants. And he most of all needs to fire certain spies, and has not yet done so. Which does not bode well, though it is early days yet.

1) He is a bozo.
2) He started off with a default 7th grade civics class understanding of how the government works. Meaning, “Mr. Bill goes to Washington,” three branches, the President rules the Executive.

He is not a wild eyed radical, and does not intend to have a coup, abolish the constitution or anything of the sort. He got elected on the premise that the government is an organization which is dysfunctional but basically looks like what it’s supposed to. He got in on the theory that he would be a CEO in charge of revamping a broken corporation, or the captain of a ship which was off course and in bad repair.

Then he got in and all three branches told him to get bent, including the executive which he was supposed to be in charge of. Leaks and betrayal everywhere. It turned out that instead of being the captain of the ship, the president is actually just some dude who prances around on the prow, and if he gets ornery and actually tries to steer the ship and order the sailors around, they chuck him down in the hold. Which is where Trump now finds himself, fighting 1000 tons of pissed off squid.

None of this should have come as a surprise, but see point 1: the guy is a bozo, President Hector Elizando Mountain Dew Camacho.

He might still pull something out, if a group of reactionaries from the alphabet soup agencies and DoD present him with a plan and execute it for him. The odds of this are very small, for the same reason that the Soviet intelligence services and military never did anything against the USSR. This group of people has very little to gain and very much to lose by rocking the boat. They have comfortable and prestigious lives and interesting professions. DC incomes have not suffered at all from progressive policies. Anyone who is anyone in those organizations has been through many rounds of positive selection for conformism and many years of negative selection for nonconformism.

In short, those pics of the “God-emperor Trump” prancing around like a doofus with a submachine gun/sword and hookers at his knees should have been embarrassing to begin with.

But, hey, he might still pull something off-fundamentally, Trump is a decent and smart kind of bozo. Look at all those Jews he surrounds himself with! Just like President Camacho had his Not Sure and empowered him to fix the Brawndo Issue, maybe President Trump will delegate Kushner to figure out all this bad stuff with the french fry and burrito cover shortages. And maybe Kushner will take on Moldbug as an adviser.

One thing is for sure-these guys are not complete idiots. No NRx Nazis, NEETs or other weirdos will be allowed anywhere near power. Might as well leave all those Inquisition fantasies in the trash where they belong.

Bozos do not acquire a hot wife, a flying palace with a gold plated bathroom, and the presidency in the face of massive opposition.

Trump knows exactly how the government really works, for he has been buying politicians for a very long time.

Trump is fairly open that he is planning a coup against the judiciary, after the fashion of Andrew Jackson, and has been planning it for many years. Of course what his supporters are hoping for is a coup against the permanent government, but a coup against the judiciary will nonetheless be a pleasant consolation prize.

Whether he can pull off a coup against the permanent government is far from clear, and I am less optimistic than I was a week ago, but he knows full well it is something he needs to do.

He has the military in his pocket, he has the praetorians in his pocket. The spies, however, are giving him a lot of grief, and if he cannot bring them into line, he is going to be a lame duck.

No NRx Nazis, NEETs or other weirdos will be allowed anywhere near power.

A hot wife and a gold plated bathroom are EXACTLY the sort of things bozos value deeply and show off proudly.

Would I really be surprised? The trouble with people of some intelligence is that they overestimate their intelligence while underestimating that of others. If I speak with you, it’s a pretty safe bet that I speak with others and have a pretty decent grasp of what’s going on.

I’m impressed with Saddam and Qaddaffii. He held his country together for decades in the face of extreme pressure from all the world’s powers and from internal religious subversion promoted by those powers.

“Us Westerners are much more sophisticated than those sand niggers. We don’t need to prove ourselves by building impressive things, because the most impressive thing about a man is how many cocks he’s sucked and how much of other people’s money he’s given to turd worlders. We dedicate ourselves not to excellence but to the proposition that all lives matter, which means we’re the best, and sky daddy will like us more”

Yes, gold plated bathroom is impressive. Because they are reactionary aesthetic, an attack on Puritan cultural hegemony.

The reactionary aesthetic requires the excellence of outward form to symbolize and express the excellence of inward function. Gold is clean, and cleanable. Hence gold plating key parts of a bathroom is different from gold plating your wheel rims as a negro does. Does he gold plate stuff because he is germophobic, or is he germophobic to justify gold plating stuff? It does not matter. He is expensively and ostentatiously free from germs either way. The negro’s gold tire rims, on the other hand, are likely on a car that does not run very well, and regardless of whether it runs well or not, fail to express and indicate that performance.

Thus, Trump gold plates the bathroom in his flying palace, where almost no one sees it, whereas a negro or an Arab will gold plate the wheel rims, where everyone can see them.

After two hundred years since the Regency aesthetic, the puritan aesthetic is exhausted, old fashioned, and has been carried to absurd extremes. Its leading edge is dominated by experts in grantsmanship fraudulently pretending to a status they conspicuously lack, with the result that the Puritan aesthetic as a whole fails to provide the status it pretends to. Your typical expert grantsman is struggling from grant to grant like a single mum on welfare.

Trump saw that the puritan aesthetic had hit its use by date, just as he saw that the political establishment was vulnerable. Shia LaBeouf’s pretense to status was collapsed by Pol hunting him down and stealing his flag, Trumps claim to status was confirmed by having a bunch of generals assemble behind him at the inauguration.

When Pol stole Shia LaBeouf’s flag and replaced it with a Trump hat, the Puritan aesthetic died, just as the Regency aesthetic died when the overweight Regent and his aging mistress could not uninvite Beau Brummel. People who think the Puritan aesthetic is still cool are out of touch.

The gold plating is mostly in the least seen part of the aircraft, and there is no gold plating on the most seen part of the aircraft. But you know it is a flying palace.

I scouted out the Trump Las Vegas hotel to see if it was any good a few months ago. Food was good, the massage at the spa was excellent. There was a bit of mold on the ceiling in the shower at the spa and some loose molding in the waiting room.

What really struck me was the elevator. Almost every elevator I ever go in has a fake “close door” button. I always press it in the vain hope it will get me to my destination 5 seconds faster and maybe keep someone else from getting on the elevator.

The “close door” button in the Trump hotel in Las Vegas works.

—-

I can see why B thinks Donald is a bozo, but I think he’s underestimating Donald — much like Sam Harris, and for the same reason. Donald DOES have ADHD, which makes him sound much less coherent than he actually is. His biggest advantage is that he is relentless and will keep coming at his adversaries until they knuckle under or shoot him.

Yes, clearly I have no appreciation for the finer points of the reactionary aesthetic and can’t distinguish it from the bozo aesthetic.

Having grown up in NYC and known plenty of guidos, I definitely have no idea of what I’m looking at. “Hey, Gino, looka dis mook ovah heah, wit da orange haircut an da gold plated bafroom! He looks like one a us!”

Just thankful that between his stints in the WWF and gold plating his crapper President Camacho didn’t get a shiny suit tailor made. The Moroccans over here like those.

Also thankful his son in law has a more classy sense of taste.

Again-he’s a decent, lovable bozo and I fully cheer him for the reaction he elicits in the American Left (and for his ability to think around corners, and the brains to delegate to Kushner and Bannon), but you’ve got to be some kind of bozo yourself if you see this guy as classy/a savior.

Yes, clearly I have no appreciation for the finer points of the reactionary aesthetic and can’t distinguish it from the bozo aesthetic.

And you are proud of your ignorance, poor taste, and inability to keep up with the latest developments in fashion.

Well, I don’t keep up with fashion either, and when I dress up it is still the Puritan aesthetic, because that was mandatory last time I purchased nice clothes, but I don’t boast about it.

Recall that when Trump held a tech summit, all the tech heads dressed in job interview formal instead of Silicon Valley expensive dark colored casual. You are out of date. I am out of date also. I still dress in (cheap) dark casual, but the difference is that I know it.

You notice that Trump had his suit unbuttoned at the inauguration, like some poor person who cannot afford a new suit for every important occasion.

This was to better display his unreasonably long and colorful red tie.

Why, you ask, did he go way overboard on the bright red tie? I wondered also.

Then you see him sitting with his women and everything, including them, especially them, especially his delicious trophy wife, is color coordinated to be red white and blue. Then I got it. But you did not. You probably thought “Oh, he is a bozo who put on a bit of weight and failed to get a new suit that fits him.”

>Then I got it. But you did not. You probably thought “Oh, he is a bozo who put on a bit of weight and failed to get a new suit that fits him.”

I didn’t think anything. Do you know why? Because:

1) I do not own a TV and haven’t in many years.

2) If I did own a TV, I would certainly not watch the sordid telenovela that is American politics on it.

3) If I were stuck in a dentist’s waiting room with the TV on and something like that came on, I would certainly not sit there and analyze the fashion choices of the participants, like some female.

I am seriously questioning your manhood at this point. Did you have any male role models growing up? Were they the kind of role models who would sit there and watch TV and gossip about the fashion choices of the people on the screen and their hypothetical reasons for making those choices?

If you are questioning my masculinity, you also have to question Trump’s masculinity – and my sex life and Trump’s sex life have something in common. The reactionary aesthetic is that the outward show has to signify inward excellence. Well my outward show is nowhere up to Trump’s, being a bit trailer park by comparison, but the inward excellence is not too bad at all, and the outward show suffices to impress.

B wants you to focus on Trump being a “bozo” and a
“doofus” because he doesn’t want the real fundamental issue to be discussed, which is that Trump lacks a racially-conscious weltanschauung. One day there will appear a leader such as only appears once in a millennium, who will espouse and inculcate a racially-conscious weltanschauung; this person will be no “bozo” or “doofus”, and B’s arrogant smirk will (finally) be replaced with a grimace of existential horror.

>If you are questioning my masculinity, you also have to question Trump’s masculinity – and my sex life and Trump’s sex life have something in common.

Yes, of course.

Any normal man has contempt for men who whore around and are proud of it, as though it were some sort of accomplishment rather than a weakness of character.

It’s a classic sign of trashiness, which is why you see it in rap videos, for instance. None of those guys grunting about their sexual conquests grew up with a father, and that’s not a coincidence.

In general, promiscuity is not very compatible with running a civilization and achieving great things over time, as Unwin pointed out and as everybody knew for a very long time.

Male achievement includes fatherhood (raising children one is proud of,) creating new things, being a warrior (offensively or defensively,) scholarship, kindness and charity, leading other men, overcoming suffering and one’s own weakness, and discovery. It does not include behaving like a feral cat in a dumpster. Only a bozo would conflate the two.

>In general, promiscuity is not very compatible with running a civilization and achieving great things over time, as Unwin pointed out and as everybody knew for a very long time.

Female promiscuity isn’t compatible with running a civilization but there have been tons of very successful civilizations where male promiscuity was tolerated without issue. You’re confusing Unwin’s correct observations with his less than useful explanations for why sexual resistant works.

To clarify what I said: I don’t give support, attention, affection, or much companionship to any women that is likely to be sleeping with someone else.

The accusation that I sleep with whores implies that I provide significant benefits to women who are likely to be receiving similar benefits from other men, which is as unreasonable an accusation for me as it is for Trump.

You are proudly ignorant. Ideas are more powerful than guns, and fashion is more powerful than ideas. The left knows this very well, Trump knows it, and the reactionary right is figuring this out.

Arguably Kings lost power largely because of Beau Brummel. Without Beau Brummel, puritanism/evangelicalism/unitarianism would have been uncool, and it would have been possible for George the fourth to laugh them off.

That he was a weak King too lazy to govern mattered, but that he became unfashionable probably mattered more. Conversely, Pol ridiculing Shia Labeouf has devastated the left.

Arguably, the moon is made of green cheese. I mean, it’s obviously not, but arguably.

Kings lost power because a guy called Cromwell, running an army of the baddest guys in all of Europe (which army thought much more like me than like you) went and chopped a king’s head off, and all the subsequent ones ruled expressly at the sufferance of the English people. 100 years before Beau Brummel. At which point all the people like you started imitating the Puritans:

Thus it was with the English Nonconformists. They had been oppressed; and oppression had kept them a pure body. They then became supreme in the state. No man could hope to rise to eminence and command but by their favour. Their favour was to be gained only by exchanging with them the signs and passwords of spiritual fraternity. One of the first resolutions adopted by Barebone’s Parliament, the most intensely Puritanical of all our political assemblies, was that no person should be admitted into the public service till the House should be satisfied of his real godliness. What were then considered as the signs of real godliness, the sadcoloured dress, the sour look, the straight hair, the nasal whine, the speech interspersed with quaint texts, the Sunday, gloomy as a Pharisaical Sabbath, were easily imitated by men to whom all religions were the same. The sincere Puritans soon found themselves lost in a multitude, not merely of men of the world, but of the very worst sort of men of the world. For the most notorious libertine who had fought under the royal standard might justly be thought virtuous when compared with some of those who, while they talked about sweet experiences and comfortable scriptures, lived in the constant practice of fraud, rapacity, and secret debauchery. The people, with a rashness which we may justly lament, but at which we cannot wonder, formed their estimate of the whole body from these hypocrites. The theology, the manners, the dialect of the Puritan were thus associated in the public mind with the darkest and meanest vices. As soon as the Restoration had made it safe to avow enmity to the party which had so long been predominant, a general outcry against Puritanism rose from every corner of the kingdom, and was often swollen by the voices of those very dissemblers whose villany had brought disgrace on the Puritan name.

Nazi-LARPing aside, B is probably correct about it being low-class and degenerate to sleep around, whether or not the cunts you penetrate are open to other suitors. It’s one thing to chase pussy on the side if you don’t get enough regular sex at home with your main partner, but pursuing one wet hole after another “for the thrill of the chase” is a rather shitty kind of conduct and strongly suggests a moral deficiency.

Now you can call me “puritan” or “beta” but I do think that Roissy — and people who aspire to be like him — is exactly the kind of person who in sane, normal times would be driven out of town by a mob carrying pitchforks and torches.

To be clear: it’s not because he’s a misogynist, as I’m a worse misogynist than he is, but because his conduct is an environmental poison, unhealthy for any kind of social harmony, truly socially destructive conduct.

Have you read his stuff about “boyfriend destroyer game” and “husband destroyer game”? IIRC he linked to some PUA blogs discussing that stuff, and has written about it at length himself. When recently I read this devilish material, I instantly thought that someone (a hero) should slice Roissy’s dick off with a saw and feed alligators with it, but leave the balls, so the sexual desperation would drive him to suicide. A fate befitting every (((pick-up artist))), in my opinion.

You may say “this is just sadistic cruelty, anon” but what are the justifications for allowing a bunch of soulles assholes to employ “boyfriend destroyer game” on innocent families? Oh, we all know the justifications: might is right, and if someone steals your girlfriend, you probably deserve it anyway. Well I say, if might is right, then people with moral fortitude should use their might to slice off Roissy’s dick using a saw and feed it to alligators while leaving the balls intact thus driving him to suicide, because the assholery promoted by Roissy (James Weidmann) and by his ilk is socially destructive.

Patriarchal monogamy is healthy for social harmony and social construction. People who threaten patriarchal monogamy by attempting (often successfully) to seduce other men’s wives should be buried in a pit and pelted with stones, in a dank marshland full of frogs far away from human civilization.

By nature I’m a “live and let live” liberal, but it has become obvious to me, and to many others, that unrestrained individualism is socially destructive rather than socially constructive. Society goes backwards instead of forwards. If unrestrained individualism is socially destructive, not constructive, then it follows that some restraints must be placed upon the liberty of individuals. One such restraint has to be: that the women of other men, belong to those other men, not to you, and if you want to seduce them, you should do so only after taking a long walk off a short pier.

Jim here has made clear that he doesn’t seduce the women of other men, but nevertheless B has a point: harems are socially destructive, and the pump-‘an-dump lifestyle is socially destructive. These things are bad for society, because they hinder patriarchal monogamy, cannot be reconciled with patriarchal monogamy.

If you want to have a harem full of women you periodically pump and dump, basically, if you want your porn collection to become “real life”, then — while your evolutionary incentives, evolutionary motivation, are perfectly clear — you are a societal blight, and it’s natural that men who want to raise a normal family in an environment conducive to stable monogamy would desire to get rid of you.

Notice that the current state of affairs — unpredictable chaos — was brought about by (((woman’s liberation))). That’s not a coincidence. Women like things unpredictable and chaotic, as they are now, because thus they get to voluntarily decide whom to mate with, without having it involuntarily decided for them by male authorities. For social harmony, we need predictability and order, meaning, men and women should know exactly what to expect from each other, should be able to accurately predict how the other side will act in any given situation.

Predictability and order are not compatible with randomly seducing one chick after another without settling down with one, the sooner. Predictability and order exist only under patriarchal monogamy, therefore hopping from one cunt to another should be socially proscribed. Plus, hopping from one cunt to another is disgusting, because it’s sleazy. The Fuehrer (now I’m back to the Nazi-Larping) was not sleazy.

Now you can call me “puritan” or “beta” but I do think that Roissy — and people who aspire to be like him — is exactly the kind of person who in sane, normal times would be driven out of town by a mob carrying pitchforks and torches.

We are not in normal times, and when normal times return, which they will one way or another way, probably through conquest by patriarchal outsiders, controls will need to applied to what is precious, rather than what is cheap.

The problem is that there seems to be an inverse relationship between female and male chastity. As soon as you start worrying about male chastity, you go blue pill, conclude that women are angels, and abandon all efforts to keep women under control.

In the normal social order, women belong to someone, and if you screw them he and his pals and brothers will kill you or castrate you, and everyone will think that is normal and OK. But this reflects a male property right. Unowned women are fair game.

The problem is, as progs rightly point out, that enforcing chastity is not actually in the interests of any individual or small cohesive group – unless of course males have a property right in their women’s chastity. So the only real enforcement you are ever going to get is from males who own women. And when you start worrying about male chastity, you simultaneously conclude it is absolutely horrid for men to own women, and that women are chaste and pure angels who only put up with sex as a horrible event that is imposed on them by cruel lecherous males.

This delusion is easily believed, because while men want to have sex with women, women do not exactly want to have sex with men, rather they want to submit to a strong man’s powerful and compelling sexual demands. They want his dangerous desire.

If you are going to have a society where there is chastity and Roissy gets run out of town on a rail, you need to have a society in which fathers and husbands have a property right in women’s sexual and domestic services, in which case you need to have a society in which it is absolutely fine for Roissy to screw unowned women all he likes, and even raping them is a rather minor offense.

Victorianism failed horribly. There were intolerable levels of female bad behavior, leading to the welfare state. We cannot do what they tried to do. It does not work. The moral code you want will not in fact get enforced, because there is no one with the power and motivation to enforce it. This results in far too many women giving birth in the rain in dark alleys, resulting in far too many Oliver Twists, and hay presto, you get all your women married to Uncle Sam the Big Pimp.

The perfectly logical (bordering on autism) formula I have devised goes:

Patriarchal monogamy –> predictability and order –> social harmony and social construction.

Therefore, anything that threatens patriarchal monogamy, also threatens the predictability and order of society, therefore also threatens social harmony and social construction. It’s so logical as to be mathematical.

And it is very evident that building a harem, by way of seduction, consisting of interchangeable, impermanent sluts, it an antithesis of patriarchal monogamy. It’s not patriarchal, since the sluts can go away, and do indeed go away, and it’s polygamous. It’s one step above matriarchy in terms of societal development/progress, and that’s about it.

The social order can only exist if chastity is enforced as male property rights in women. Otherwise no incentive to enforce chastity. Therefore, the society you and I want can only exist if unowned women are fair game.

And today, most women are unowned.

The problem with the puritans is that they desecrated marriage, which made their theoretical support for chastity in both sexes empty of real substance.

It is an inherent failure mode of Pauline marriage. Pauline marriage treats women as real people, but it is a mighty short step from treating them as real people, to treating them as sexually similar to men, in which case, because they are not in fact sexually similar to men, Pauline marriage goes out the window.

>As soon as you start worrying about male chastity, you go blue pill, conclude that women are angels, and abandon all efforts to keep women under control.

>And when you start worrying about male chastity, you simultaneously conclude it is absolutely horrid for men to own women, and that women are chaste and pure angels who only put up with sex as a horrible event that is imposed on them by cruel lecherous males.

But you see, there’s another way of addressing the issue. The problem with Trump grabbing the pussies of supermodels is not that they didn’t like it, but that they did like it. The sense of comfort to which women are addicted is not relevant to anything – what is relevant is that Trump had it exactly right: you *can* do anything to them, like grabbing them by the pussy — provided, of course, you are a Trump.

The reason this is a problem is that, as I’ve said, a harem full of interchangeable impermanent sluts is the antithesis of patriarchal monogamy, and as I also have said, women like these kinds of harems, and fantasize about being seduced into such harems by alpha men, their unconvincing protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

As you can see, I’m not a prog who believes that women have white wings attached to their backs and a glowing golden halo hovering above their heads – just the opposite. But still, it takes two to tango.

So, on one side of the divide there are women, who are feral, and seducers, who are degenerate. Both women and seducers want harems, with an alpha male at the top.

On the other side: normal men whose interest is to maintain patriarchal monogamy. Normal men understand, or had understood before the Great Brainwashing of the 20th century began, that the family unit of one man and one woman, where the woman is chaste, and the man doesn’t concern himself with getting pussy on the side because his wife’s pussy is satisfying enough for him (and is always available), is the ideal for all of society.

In the interest of stable monogamy, which is the interest of civilization, every man should have a wife, and every woman should have a husband, and they should sexually satisfy one another, and if they sexually satisfy one another, there won’t be any need to cheat in the first place.

If one man’s un-chastity is another man’s blue balls, then social harmony is in detriment, and male un-chastity becomes destructive. Solution proposed: sexual socialism, or sexual egalitarian distribution of women (who are property). If you’re a high status man, you can get a high status woman – no problem. But no reason why you should deprive another man of having any sexual outlet at all, by taking an additional woman.

The low-status man can have a low-status woman, and the high-status man can have a high-status woman — like matches with like — and there’s no reason why anyone should be left without a partner.

There are various measured that can be employed so that high-status couples reproduce more than low-status couples — low-status couples can be sterilized, for instance — thus ensuring that breeding is eugenic, all while maintaining strict monogamy.

Chasing (and acquiring) more vagina than your penis requires is degenerate. In that case, one’s focus is in all the wrong places, it’s not healthy for one or for society. Seducers don’t build civilizations.

As you can see, I’m not a prog who believes that women have white wings attached to their backs and a glowing golden halo hovering above their heads – just the opposite. But still, it takes two to tango.

Your proposed moral system is not incentive compatible. Therefore, was not enforced in the past, and will not be enforced in the future. That is how we got into this mess.

Chastity needs to be a reflection of male property rights in women enforced by the owners of women. No matter what arguments you present that this should not be that way, that it should be the way Victorians pretended that it was, the alternative is not Victorian England as Victorians liked to pretend it was, but Victorian England as it actually was.

If chastity is based on male property rights in women, unowned women are outside the system and are presumed to be unchaste – and need to be outside so that they can be discriminated against and treated as of lesser value and lesser worth.

>When men have all the power, harems are permanent. Impermanent and shifting harems reflect women jockeying for power, status, and sexual attention by playing one harem lord off against another.

>We men are dancing monkeys, women call the tune, even if the tune involves the woman being beaten with a stick.

What logically follows from those two statements, re:

a) harems are permanent only if men have all the power;
b) men don’t ever have all the power, on the contrary, women have all the power

is that harems are always impermanent rather than permanent. Thus, harems are degenerate.

And whether or not they are permanent, it is polygamy, and polygamy is socially destructive, because again, if one man’s second wife (or “side pussy”) means that another man is married to his right hand, then society is the worse for it.

>And today, most women are unowned.

Right, that’s the source of the problem.

I don’t mind the rape of unowned women – in fact, I was among the first on this blog to propose just that, in order to incentivize marriage — but the problem is that they *want* to be raped by alpha males, and they *want* to be grabbed by the pussy by Trump.

And if they want to be grabbed by the pussy and raped, or in your words: “submit to a man’s sexual demands”, then you still need to get at least minimal modesty for men, otherwise a minority of alphas and/or seducers will rape all the female population, and women will like it that way, and basically that’s not very different from where we are today.

If there are no seducers, women suddenly remember that they want to be owned. And if men are not allowed to be seducers, then they are incentivized to maintain patriarchal monogamy, rather than sexual chaos. Thus,

Patriarchal monogamy is the solution to sexual chaos, and to have patriarchal monogamy, women should be strictly chaste, but men should also be discouraged from sexual profligacy. The bigger problem is female unchastity, but male unchastity, while not as destructive, is still very destructive.

>Chastity needs to be a reflection of male property rights in women enforced by the owners of women.

>If chastity is based on male property rights in women, unowned women are outside the system and are presumed to be unchaste – and need to be outside so that they can be discriminated against and treated as of lesser value and lesser worth.

And how, exactly, are you going to dis-incentivize seducers from hopping from one unowned pussy to another unowned pussy and then to another and another (a state of affairs women love), without making it either impermissible, or at least low-status, to seek sex outside of marriage?

Women would want monogamy when playing with alpha seducers is no longer possible. As long as they can play with alphas, getting into and out of their harems, they would like it to stay that way. If the seducers “disappear”, suddenly women realize that gee, they actually stand to benefit by having a husband.

If you do not dis-incentivize serial seduction, women will continue to be serially seduced, and will like it that way, and you’ll have polygamy or quasi-polygamy, therefore some men, who could have had a sexual outlet under patriarchal monogamy, will find themselves with blue balls married to their right hand, which is socially destructive.

So you actually do need to dis-incentivize serial seduction, by making it either low-status (bang sluts all day, and get shunned by male peers) or outright forbidden.

By associating yourself with unowned women by seducing them and fucking them, you associate yourself with low-status property, thus, you are yourself low-status. That’s the idea. You should only associate yourself with one woman – the one you are married to. Or at least a permanent partner of sorts.

Profligacy is morally deficient (it’s socially destructive due to being unhealthy, as you focus on the wrong things in life), and totally degenerate, and once recognized as such and treated as such, once women are required to be chaste but men are also dis-incentivized from serial seduction, once the monogamous family unit is elevated as the ideal, and degenerate bachelorhood is rendered low-status and dis-incentivized by there being many benefits to having a family, once you have all that, patriarchal monogamy flows naturally, and with it plenty of social boons.

So, anything that is detrimental to patriarchal monogamy, all “alternative lifestyles”, should be eliminated or rendered low-status, and there should be put in place incentives for patriarchal monogamy — need to permanently own a woman, but not more than one.

> And how, exactly, are you going to dis-incentivize seducers from hopping from one unowned pussy to another unowned pussy and then to another and another (a state of affairs women love),

We are not. We cannot. Nor should we. We should presume unowned women to be whores and sluts, presume them to be of lesser value. Otherwise male ownership of women lacks the necessary moral authority.

We have to treat unowned women as whores and sluts, as women of low value, otherwise women will be disinclined to cooperate in being property.

Women want to be valued, want to be high value. But unowned women will uncontrollably and predictably wind up seducing some alpha male, such as Mohammed. And then, finding themselves of low rank in Mohammed’s ever growing harem, they will try to play off another alpha male against Mohammed. The Muslim rules are, more or less, the rather ad hoc and unsystematic reaction of Mohammed and his high ranking officers to Mohammed’s hilarious woman troubles.

Women will raise their value by playing one alpha male against another. And to stop them from doing this, they have to be owned. And to keep them owned, we have to make unowned women of low value. And if we make unowned women of low value, we cannot allow ourselves to care about Roissy banging them.

> And how, exactly, are you going to dis-incentivize seducers from hopping from one unowned pussy to another unowned pussy and then to another and another (a state of affairs women love), without making it either impermissible, or at least low-status, to seek sex outside of marriage?

You miss the point. It is inherently high status for a male to have lots of women, so we cannot make it low status. We can, however, make it low status for a woman to hop from harem to harem.

You cannot have the society you are asking for, because it is not incentive aligned. The Victorians tried very hard and failed. The Puritans tried very hard and failed. You cannot apply and enforce the same rules on males as you can on females. It just does not work. All you get is hypocrisy, and you get plenty of that.

Further, trying to deter men makes harem hopping high status for women. If we worry about what Roissy is doing with unowned women, we imply that unowned woman are frequently high value chaste women that are being corrupted by this vile seducer. We should instead take the view that they are worthless human garbage who are corrupting him by seducing him into having sex with human garbage, that unowned women, not vile seducers, are low status.

We cannot afford to worry about what Roissy is doing with unowned women, for to pay attention implies that unowned women are valuable. Unowned women are not valuable because almost by definition they go from one man to the next.

Preferring a lump of shit on a pedestal is Jewish because the more important part is telling a story about why it’s sublime art – showing off mate value through verbal IQ and taking a dig at those with higher visuospatial IQ (literally almost every other ethnic group – but Europeans especially).

Trump’s extravagant wealth display is an act, or at least started out that way; he said so in an old interview. He’s been deliberately evoking royalesque style for decades now in a deliberate countersignal against Puritan-derived progressively and pathologically understated style full of muted colors: black, charcoal, brown, white. The golden aura only looks gaudy to us because Puritan fashion has been so hegemonic for so long — since Beau Brummell, at least.

A short while ago, progs, (and thus Jews) could be proud to not understand the reactionary aesthetic. Today, however, failure to understand is no longer cool. Ever since Pol stole Shia LaBeouf’s flag, the Puritan aesthetic has been uncool.

We’ll see how competent spies are in their final act, stirring up revolution in Russia. I expect them to lose there as they lost in Ukraine and Syria. Ukrainian women aren’t being raped by Syrian child refugees.

Democrat rank and file are willing to repeat the retarded lies about His Majesty and Russia. They aren’t actually as willing to repeat the retarded lie that Trump wasn’t spied on, but, of course, it couldn’t have been by the magic negro.

The alt right is stronger than ever. Jews aren’t given a special pass to do whatever because of religious reasons and more importantly no one is saying to go lenient on commie terrorists because their hearts are in the right place. His Majesty did what I didn’t expect for the alt right in putting to bed hate crime hoaxes, for which reason alone we should thank Him.

I read these and they would never work. You couldn’t get it passed in the first place and at,”…A single Senator will have the power to block any nominee they find objectionable from appearing on a candidate list that is to be voted on for Senate approval…”
I stopped reading then. We would have no government at all. Some may like that but I don’t think everything government does is evil so I’m against it.

The wilful refusal of christcucks to hold the line on gay marriage not only ended the religious debate on the alt right but also forces normies to seek alternative philosophies that justify their feelings, leftists call that bigotry but they’re clueless and behind the times. Meanwhile, the obvious fact that the weird 88 genders tranny nonsense is coming from universities delegitimizes the universities in the eyes of the normies. Universities like hiding behind their math and physics faculty when confronted, which is why those guys need to be whipped. But everyone can now see that, other than those guys, universities are filled with morons.

Listened to the White House Press conference today. We’re fucked. Trump has publicly committed to doing the exact opposite of what needs to be done to restore the birthrate and get our numbers up. He is supporting women’s rights. More subsidized child care. More paid maternal leave. And more perks and pork to assist women entrepreneurs. This is almost like he read Roissy’s article yesterday about the Single White Woman voting bloc, and is now choosing them and cutting us loose. Dance with the one that brung ya, Donny. Those women need to be baking bunz in ovenz, not aspiring to be entrepreneurs.

And the point of subsidized child care and paid maternal leave, is that women can “work” in the workforce instead of staying home and focused on being mothers. And that means more tax out of everyones pocket. And that means less money/status for men to attract a woman and form families. This is single mommy subsidizing. Bad bad bad.

They can oppose faggot-marriage all they want; at the end of the day, their religion accepts, indeed has already accepted, the conversion of niggers and sandniggers. That will be the downfall of Judea, not sodomy.

Jim, you apologized to this guy and conceded his point. But this B. fellow is exhibiting a shocking lack of Grace. I’ve been reading his comments here and elsewhere and am exasperated by how obnoxious and arrogant he is. Is this fellow for real or did you invent him as some sort of experiment?